CITY OF FREDERICK

City Hall - 101 N. Court Street

 

Minutes

 

TAXICAB COMMISSION MEETING

 

10:00 a.m.

Friday, March 31st, 2006, room 212, City Hall  

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Present: Alderman Donna Kuzemchak Ramsburg; Alderman Marcia Hall, Alderman Paul Smith, Kenny Shapiro, John Fiesler, Jerry Wood, Tammy Wood, Lt. Tom Chase, Katherine Heerbrandt, Seavon Gordon, Daniel Mahone, Katy Brandenburg, William Bowie, Eileen Farrar

 

Item 1:  Minutes from the meeting of July 20th, 2005.

Minutes could not approved due to a new board and Alderman Ramsburg not in attendance at this meeting so minutes were entered into the record only 

 

Review: Kenny Shapiro was asked to update the new Commission members and give a summary of the new Taxicab Ordinance and how the number of permits allowed for the City was chosen as well as how and when new permits would be available. Transferability, fees, complaint compliance, new color and identification requirements, hailing a cab and new taxicab stands were also discussed.

 

Item 2:  Discussion regarding taxicab service and tourism.

Alderman Ramsburg stated that a complaint had been sent to John Fiesler of the Tourism Council regarding the taxi service from a hotel in Frederick. Mr. Fieseler, executive director of the Tourism Council of Frederick County, wanted to share his concerns about complaints sent to the Tourism Council.  Alderman Ramsburg stated that due to the lack of notice to the taxicab company in the complaint, the taxicab company would have the opportunity for rebuttal at another meeting in the future.  Mr. Shapiro stated that anyone was entitled to make their concerns or complaint to the Commission. Alderman Hall stated that validation is important.  Mr. Shapiro also stated that the nature of the complaints must be generated in the City; Ms. Ramsburg stated that complaints outside the city using City services should be addressed.  Mr. Fieseler spoke about the many verbal remarks from members of the hospitality industry made regarding the Taxicab service in the city.  Mr. Fieseler stated that most of the hotels are outside of the city and many guests want to travel into the City and the biggest concern was not being able to indicate when a taxi would arrive.  Ms. Ramsburg referred to Section 23-47 of the Taxicab Ordinance that stipulates the specific process for making complaints regarding Taxicab service.  Alderman Smith stated that he does not want to relinquish jurisdiction over complaints when it might hurt the City.  Alderman Smith stated that he felt the Taxicab companies should be notified. Discussion continued as to whether the Commission should discuss complaints that are generated outside of the city if the language is not in the Ordinance.  Mr. Wood of City Cab Company stated that he would send an email describing what information he had regarding this complaint.  Mr. Shapiro stated that he would inform Mr. Fieseler of how tourists can handle complaints and what discussions could be held in the future.  Mr. Fieseler stated that he would contact Mr. Shapiro for further instructions on procedures regarding complaints.         

 

Item 3:  Discussion regarding Permit #25.

Lt. Tom Chase representing the administrative agency for the City’s Taxicab companies spoke to the commission regarding permit #25.  Lt. Chase stated the following information regarding permit #25 to the commission;

Beginning November 12, 2005, Bowie Transportation notified them that the taxicab that holds permit #25 was in an accident. A memorandum was sent to Bowie Transportation on November 14th, 2005 stating that the accident report was incomplete and did not have required information and that since that time, no information has been received from them.   On December 21, 2005 while checking status on permits, it was determined that a notice of noncompliance letter by the MVA was sent to them due to vehicle emission requirements.  On January 6, 2006, a letter was sent to Bowie Transportation of impending suspension of Maryland registration due to the VEIP situation. Lt. Chase also stated that there must be communication from the permit holder in five business days after they have been notified by the administrative agency.  On January 13th, 2006, the Maryland registration for this vehicle was suspended for VEIP non- compliance. There had been notification to the agency from the US postal service that the January 6th letter had been signed by Mr. Bowie of Bowie Transportation. On January 18th, 2006, a certified letter was sent to Bowie Transportation notifying them of recent suspension and asked them to surrender #25, to be forfeited, consistent with statute. On March 24th, 2006, the vehicle registered as permit #25 had been junked by Bowie Transportation. On March 28th, 2006, a representative of Bowie transportation came to the office with an MVA inspection certificate which they concluded was the first step in transferring vehicles on permit #25. Pursuant to Section 23-9 in the city code, effective January 11th, 2006, permit #25 was to be forfeited because the vehicle had not been operated within the required 60 days. Lt. Chase asked the commission to decide whether the agency be allowed to let Bowie transportation register another vehicle that was be forfeited, or do they consider this permit to be forfeited and this permit be allowed to be opened in the pool of available permits. Mr. Daniel Mahone, attorney representing Mr. Bowie, stated that he felt that Section 23-9 did not apply in this case and explained that Mr. Bowie’s vehicle was in an accident.  Mr. Mahone stated that the permit was purchased by Mr. Bowie and he thought there was not a mechanism in the ordinance that would apply in this instance.  Mr. Shapiro explained that in section 23-9 of the ordinance after the 30 days has expired; you must continue to provide the proper information to the agency.  Mr. Shapiro stated that after 30 days you will get fined and after 60 days the fines will stop and the permit is forfeited back to the City.  Mr. Smith stated that he did not see in section 23-9 where it is implicit.  Mr. Shapiro stated that the wording could be changed.  Mr. Shapiro reviewed section 23-30 and section 23-31 which explains where notification must be made when taxicabs are taken out of service and violations that can occur. Alderman Ramsburg asked why Mr. Bowie did not respond and Mr. Bowie explained that the vehicle was totaled and he responded to VEIP that it was not operable.  Mr. Mahone said Mr. Bowie did not think he had to respond.  Mr. Mahone says that notice seems to be based on section 23-9 and that this section is difficult to understand.  Alderman Hall stated that she felt that there have been a number of opportunities on the part of the cab company to either prevent or delay any punitive damages and chances to comply with the law.  Alderman Hall felt that it would be less punitive to forfeit the permit rather than pay the fines according to the ordinance.  Alderman Smith recommended that another meeting be held regarding section 23-30 in the ordinance.  Alderman Ramsburg stated that she felt that there was a problem with the wording with the ordinance and did not think there should be action taken on this day.  Mr. Shapiro stated that he could make the appropriate changes to the ordinance as requested.

Motion:  Alderman Marcia Hall moved to affirm that permit #25 was forfeited by Bowie Transportation Inc. as of January 11, 2006.  Motion died for lack of a second.  Second Motion was made by Alderman Paul Smith to take no action on permit #25. Seconded by Alderman Ramsburg.  Vote:  2-1 in favor of second motion to take no action at this time. 

 

Comment:  Permit #25 is still owned by Bowie Transportation

: 

Item 4:  Discussion regarding permit policy.

Mr. Shapiro stated that there are currently 44 permits in use and the city can go up to per the ordinance 1 permit per 1 thousand of the population as determined by the census. Mr. Shapiro stated that review can be undertaken annually.  Mr. Shapiro reviewed past history of a waiting list and how that list was eliminated by use of a lottery and per this process only 45 people wanted a permit. Mr. Shapiro also stated that any one wishing to obtain a permit now would go though a lottery system. Alderman Ramsburg stated that to date only one permit has been requested.  Mr. Shapiro stated that only one application per permit is allowed.  Alderman Ramsburg asked the commission to determine for future meetings how the lottery would be held and if the commission wants to open up to more permits. Lt. Chase also asked that clarification on how the lottery system would work and who would be responsible should there be a lottery in the future. 

 

Alderman Ramsburg stated that future meetings would be held on Wednesday mornings at 9:00 am.

 

Public comments:

Mr. Mahone stated that the ordinance had been rewritten but it still needed work. Mr. Mahone was concerned about the 60 hours that a cab needs to be on the road and felt that it was the permits holder’s choice and should not be penalized for less time on the road if the owner has satisfied his business requirements.  Mr. Mahone stated that a permit should not be forfeited for certain circumstances but rather held by the city until such a time that the permit could be reused by the original owner.

 

Mr. Seavon Gordon stated his opinion regarding hailing of cabs and the addition of new taxi stands.  Mr. Gordon is opposed to the addition of new permits and felt Frederick has enough.  Mr. Gordon stated that all of the bars and restaurants in town let out at 2:00 am and many patrons need a cab at the same time, but at other times there was no business.  

 

Mr. William Bowie felt that he needed to have an attorney come with him to attend the taxi meetings and he couldn’t afford it and did not attend for several months for this reason.  Mr. Bowie stated that he could not read the police reports regarding his accident and insurance claims. Mr. Bowie felt that the process hurts the small business man with fees and fines assessed by the ordinance and it becomes very expensive to run a business.

 

Mr. Jerry Wood stated that he only has 19 cabs as opposed to the reports of 39 or 40. Mr. Wood stated that he has been involved in the process of creating a new ordinance and thought it was a good ordinance.  Mr. Wood stated that he was not in favor of a rate change due to a new schedule that was created two years ago and feels that the citizens are paying too much already and it has helped to buy cars with six cylinders. 

 

Ms. Tammy Wood stated that she agreed with Mr. Gordon and felt that the City has a sufficient number of permits.

 

The meeting ended at 11:55 a.m.

Future meetings will be held on Wednesday at 9:00 am.

 

Minutes were submitted by Eileen Farrar